This blog is written on WordPress, with a theme that fits the purpose – providing a support for blog entries combining text with a small selection of pictures illustrating what the text was trying to convey.
Until something like one year ago, new posts on CamerAgX were automatically announced on Twitter (it was a feature of WordPress). Following disagreements between WordPress and Twitter’s new owner, the feature was sunset. A substitute is finally available – on a relatively new micro-blogging site named Bluesky (and abbreviated as bsky.app). Click on this link to subscribe to CamerAgX on Bluesky.
Next week, we’ll return to the normal weekly posts – the ones with cameras. Because of the sorry weather we have to endure over here, I did not have the opportunity to shoot as much as I wanted and my next three posts are still waiting for some real life shooting experience before I can push the “Publish” button.
Thank you for having the curiosity and the patience to come back to this blog regularly.
This is the other cheap camera I bought on Xmas eve on shopgoodwill.com. I paid less than $14.00 for it. The 2Cr5 battery it needed cost me more.
Launched in 1990, it was known to the North American public as the Photura, in Europe as the Epoca and in Japan as the Autoboy Jet. That’s the first generation model, and the one I bought.
A second model (the Photura 135) was released 2 years later, with a zoom offering longer reach (38-135) instead of 35-105 for the original model and a darker body color. That’s the one presented in Canon’s virtual museum.
Because my copy of this camera was bought in the US, it’s a Photura, and that’s what we’ll call it it for the rest of this blog entry.
Screenshot from Canon’s virtual museum pages
To this day, Canon’s official litterature still presents it as a top of the line camera.
Top of the line, for a point and shoot camera of its day: motorized 35-105 zoom, infra-red based autofocus, motorized film advance, drop in film loading, DX coding, dioptric correction, and all sorts of override modes for the autofocus – nothing’s missing.
Viewed from the back now.
The bridge cameras
In the late nineteen eighties (because they had missed the boat of the autofocus SLRs) , Ricoh, Olympus and Chinon started pushing cameras of a new type, that “bridged” the gap between conventional Point and Shoot cameras and Single Lens Reflex (SLR) . Like a Point and Shoot, they had a non removable zoom, and like SLRs, image framing was done through the lens. A flash was also built-in. It made for a large and heavy combo, but in the mind of the people who designed them, those all-in-one bridge cameras were supposed to be cheaper, less intimidating and easier to carry around than an autofocus SLR with an equivalent 35-135 zoom and a big cobra flash.
Because they tried to combine all the features of an autofocus SLR and its accessories (zoom and flash) in one compact design, the bridge cameras looked strange – and their form factor would not be widely accepted by the buying public before the beginning of the digital camera era – when the smaller size of the image sensor made much smaller lenses (and therefore much smaller cameras) easier to design.
The Photura was Canon’s late entry in the bridge camera category – except it was not really a bridge camera. Like a bridge camera it was designed around a 35-105 zoom, with an electronic flash (hidden in the front lens cover in this case) and a hand strap, but it was not a single lens reflex camera – the viewfinder was a simple Galilean design with variable magnification, similar to what you would have found on a point and shoot camera of that era. And the photo cell used for metering did not operate through the zoom lens, but through a separate tiny lens next to it. So did the infra-red autofocus system. Like on a point and shoot camera.
The Photura as it’s generally represented, from the lens side.
First impressions
The biggest surprise is how heavy (600g without its disposable 2CR5 battery), and how big the Photura is. Even considering that the zoom has a relatively broad range and that it’s rather luminous at the wide end (f/2.8 at 35mm), it’s shocking. It’s not as if Canon had integrated a constant aperture zoom in the camera – the aperture at the long end is only f/6.6, and and the reason why Canon recommended using 200 or 400 ISO film. To Canon’s defense, the (real) bridge cameras proposed by Ricoh, Olympus and Chinon were even bulkier and heavier, the Ricoh Mirai tipping the scale at more than one kilogram (2.2 lbs), with a lens less luminous than the Canon’s.
The second biggest surprise is that you don’t hold the Photura like you would hold any other camera. At least when you’re keeping the frame horizontal (shooting a landscape, for instance) and at the wide end of the zoom range, you simply insert your right hand between the body of the camera and the hand strap, and access the zoom rocker switch and the shutter release button with the tip of your fingers. Like you would do with a video camera. It’s not unpleasant, it’s just strange and a bit disconcerting.
The first experience is positive: the camera is reactive, the viewfinder is rather large, and it’s fun to use – for a point and shoot camera. Even if it’s bulky and heavy compared to most compact cameras, it’s still light enough that you can walk for one hour with your hand wrapped around the camera, which makes it a surprisingly discreet and convenient tool for street photography.
Lefties beware…
Unfortunately, the unconventional design doesn’t work as well if you’re a leftie, or if you shoot at the tele end of the zoom, or if you’re shooting a portrait and keep the frame vertical – you’ll need to hold the camera with two hands.
Another thing that does not work at all is what Canon calls the low angle viewfinder – it’s a second and very small viewfinder located at the top of the camera’s body – it’s so small you have to have your eye just above it (less than a centimeter) or you don’t see anything. In their user manual, Canon write that it’s to take pictures of children. Look at the posture of the photographer shown in Canon’s own user manual – the kids will laugh at the poor guy and will be gone before he can take the first picture. But it works if you’re kneeling, and trying to shoot something very close to the ground, like a very calm dog sitting in his bed.
Photura user manual – courtesy of thecanoncollector.com – note the very unnatural posture of the photographer trying to use the “low angle viewfinder”
Lastly, and maybe it was unavoidable with the technology of the day (and the price point being targeted), the autofocus system still seems to require a lot of work from the photographer: it can not focus to the infinite on its own – you have to force it by pressing a tiny button; it can not focus on tiny objects, and, because its detection zone is a rather small area at the center of the frame, you have to use an early form of AF lock if your subject is off center. Which is often the case if you shoot a portrait and want the focus on the eyes of your subject – not very amateur friendly.
The Photura is very large for a “compact” camera. A zoom of similar range is mounted on the AT-1.
That’s my biggest gripe with this camera – when it was launched in 1990, very good motorized autofocus SLRs were already available from Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax and a few others, and their phase detect autofocus was already more efficient and reliable than what we have here. Their reflex viewfinder was incomparably better than what the Photura could offer – and you could see directly whether your subject was in focus or not (on the Photura you have to rely on a green/red LED that will simply confirm that it did focus on… something). And they also provided more control over the exposure. A Canon Rebel of the same vintage (with its 35-80 kit zoom) was not that much more expensive (only 10% more), was not that much heavier (if it even was), and would have been my choice without any hesitation if I had been looking for my first “serious” camera.
As can be expected, the Photura line stopped at the 135 model. Canon’s next big hit in the compact camera sector would have to wait for a few years, with the very small Elph/Ixus – one of few good APS cameras of the late nineties, which later morphed into the digital Elph, one of the first really good digital compact cameras in the early years of this century.
Canon Photura brochureEven next to an autofocus SLR it’s not really smaller.
What about the pictures?
I loaded the Photura with a roll of UltraMax 400 and spent a few hours walking in an area of Atlanta named Cabbagetown. Its population has almost fully completed the transition from “working class” to “young urban professional” – Teslas, Porsches and Volvos are more common in the streets than old American iron.
I already mentioned that the Photura is a pleasant camera to carry around, and the images it captures are generally very good – sharp enough and correctly exposed – very few are technically deficient. I simply boosted vibrance and clarity to add punch to the pictures shown below. On the other hand, close-ups and interior scenes can’t be shot without the flash, which tends to over-expose massively subjects located at less than 4 ft.
All in all, I was pleasantly surprised by the Photura. I bought it as a curiosity, but the quality of the images it delivered impressed me. It’s an almost entirely automatic camera, with comparatively simple auto exposure and autofocus systems, and it works very well. Modern cameras will yield much better results indoors, but as a street and travel photography camera, it’s very efficient and a pleasure to shoot with. A keeper. Who would have guessed it?
Atlanta, Cabbage Town – Canon Photura & Kodak UltraMax 400
Atlanta, Cabbage Town – Canon Photura & Kodak UltraMax 400. The flash kicked in and gave an artificial look to the picture.Atlanta, Cabbage Town – the preacher’s car at the end of the Sunday service – a bible, a bottle of water, a bag of chips and car keys. Canon Photura & Kodak UltraMax 400
I don’t remember who gave it to me – because I for sure did not buy this thing – it was probably purchased for a few bucks in a thrift store. But since it’s here, let’s use it.
There are multiple variants of this mug. The most current today is the Canon 24-105mm f/4 USM, but mine is an older 28-135 EF-S L II USM. If it was a real lens, it would be a pretty good one, with L glass and image stabilization.
On Amazon.com this morning – all big box retailers propose them on their on-line stores.
Specifications
From a distance, it looks like a real zoom lens – the size is right, the AF/MF and Stabilization On/Off switches are realistically rendered, and the markings look like they were applied in a Canon factory. The screw-on lid is shaped like the front end of a zoom, with a large domed lens to justify the f/2.5 maximum aperture.
According to the description of the current 24-105 zooms available in 2025, the tumbler is insulated and works like a thermos. The lining is BPA-free stainless steel, and the lid is leak proof. I measured the capacity of my 28-135 zoom at approximately 10oz (0.3l).
It’s a real mug.
How does it work as a coffee mug?
I tested it with coffee, and with cold drinks.
For an insulated thermos coffee mug, it’s not very good at insulating. It’s still better than a paper cup, but not as good as a Yeti or an Igloo tumbler. If you need more than a few minutes to drink 10oz of hot coffee, the mug will become pleasantly warm, and the coffee unpleasantly colder.
The screw-on lid is problematic – first, it’s not leak proof, and, after some hot coffee has found its way out, the mug becomes sort of vacuum sealed, and the lid becomes really difficult to un-screw.
it works better as a tumbler to enjoy cold drinks
How to tell for sure it’s not a Canon lens?
The question sounds stupid – and anybody who has an opportunity to hold one in their hands knows immediately it’s not a Canon lens. Canon zooms are not that light, they’re much better finished, and their front can’t be unscrewed to give access to their stainless steel innards. But if you’re only being shown a small, low resolution picture, it may not be that easy.
There are three tell tales:
1/ even though it’s sold as a Canon zoom lens replica, the mug does not correspond exactly to a specific Canon model.
2/ even on a low res picture, you may be able to see the marks left by the mould during the manufacturing process. Canon lenses don’t have those marks.
3/ there are obvious inaccuracies – my 28-135 zoom has an aperture ring, like a Nikon AF lens. I don’t know of any Canon EF lens with an aperture ring. And “SDM” is a Pentax acronym for “Supersonic Drive Motor”.
Two hints it’s a mug and not the real thing: the aperture ring – the Canon EF lenses never had one, and the mark of the mould above the AF cursor.
Could it fool anybody?
Maybe…I found this listing on ShopGoodwill.com recently. It was a bundle of “two vintage Canon film bodies and multiple lenses” – no mention of a mug, that sold for $167.00.
As a conclusion
It’s a gadget. Not very good as a coffee mug. But if you have a couple of old Canon EOS cameras in a showcase, you’ll be happy to add this Canon’s EF-S 28-135mm replica to your cabinet of curiosities.
Call it the Instagram effect, but there seems to be a renewed interest for compact, point and shoot cameras – from the late film and early digital times (roughly 1990-2015).(see * at the bottom of this page)
But where to find them? Resellers of used photo equipment like KEH or MPB don’t seem to carry any – which leaves us with marketplaces and auction sites like eBay, Mercari or Shopgoodwill.
Minolta AF-C – an ultra compact “premium” camera from 1983.
For a photographer looking for an old camera, eBay is relatively buyer-friendly – the feedback mechanism gives the cautious user a good tool to evaluate the reliability of the seller, and eBay organizes the shipping and the delivery to ensure that the transaction is satisfactory for the buyer – most of the time. It does not dispense the buyer from being cautious (beware of sellers with no or extremely limited feedback, of succinct item descriptions and of offers too good to be true).
On eBay, buying from the Mecca of old cameras, Japan, is easy – items often get delivered to your doorstep faster than if you bought them from an American vendor. Just be cognizant to the fact that your Japanese seller will probably have a very limited mastery of the English language, and that some of the Japanese camera manufacturers (in fact, most of them) sold specific versions of their cameras on their domestic market, that could only display Japanese menus and could not be reflashed with an “international” firmware. Validate that the camera you want to buy can be configured to the language of your choice, obviously.
A Canon Photura/Epoca – a very strange bridge camera from 1990.
I don’t know Mercari that well – I’ve always been discouraged by obvious red flags on the listings of a significant number of sellers, and I’ve never bought anything from them. In my limited experience with the site, I’ve noticed that they’re not as good as eBay at policing their site, and at banning obvious scams (sellers with zero history proposing a very sought after camera at half of the normal price). Which casts a doubt on the reliability of the whole marketplace. (see ** at the bottom of this page).
The red body+lens combo was bought on eBay, and worked. The white combo was bought on Shopgoodwill, and the lenses did not work. I had not followed my own rule – buy equipment described as “tested” by the vendor.
Shopgoodwill is changing. Contrarily to eBay or Mercari, it’s not a marketplace – it’s simply the on-line auction site of the Goodwill organization. It operates on a very decentralized model – and the photographic knowledge of most of those local organizations is still abysmal. Sometimes the work is divided in such a way that the poor soul entering the description of the item on the web site has never had it in hand, and only has a few low res pictures to work from – to comical effects: I recently saw a coffee mug in the shape of a Canon IS USM 24-105 lens described as a lens.
But a few local Goodwill organizations seem to have significantly stepped up their game recently, and now describe the cameras they sell accurately (they even list the tests they performed and their outcome). And it works – I’ve not had a bad surprise with Shopgoodwill recently. It could also be that – with experience – I’ve become better at separating the wheat from the shaff.
Canon “Canonet” QL17 GIII – Antique markets are generally not a place to buy cameras like this one – but there are exceptions – the seller had a good reputation on the place of Atlanta as a camera repair man.
My rules for buying on Shopgoodwill.com:
1 / Only bid on cameras which have been accurately described and tested, with – in the case of digital cameras – a few photos of their rear LCD to confirm they’re in working order.
2/ Only bid on digital cameras that come with a battery – if there is no battery it’s very likely the cameras were not working when they were donated to Shopgoodwill. If the camera’s battery can’t be recharged without an external battery charger, and that charger is not included, walk away. Consider that batteries and chargers for early digital cameras can be extremely difficult to locate, and seriously expensive. And of course, without a charged battery a camera can not be tested, which brings us back to 1/.
3/ Avoid cameras with a known weak point, or a reputation for aging poorly. There are brands or models I would never buy on Goodwill (almost anything Contax and Yashica, many Pentax models or any premium compact film camera from the nineties). If I wanted such a camera, I would go to a specialized reseller, on their website or on their eBay storefront.
4/ Determine the maximum price you’re willing to pay, and stick to it. Logically, cameras should sell on Goodwill for significantly less than what well known and respected specialized stores would ask on their own web sites or on eBay. As a buyer on Shopgoodwill.com your risk of ending with a lemon is much higher, and you have no recourse because you’re buying “a donated item as-is”. I don’t understand why people are entering bidding wars and end up paying more for an untested piece of equipment than they would pay from a reputable seller on eBay.(see *** at the bottom of this page)
‘For parts or not working”
Nikon D700 – 380,000 actuations the day I bought it on eBay – it hasn’t missed a beat since.
Generally, when an item is described as “for parts, not working”, it’s true. A seller would not advertise a camera as “not working” if it was working. Right?
Well, not always.
I can think of two situations when a camera is advertised as “non working” but is actually capable of taking pictures:
Canon or Nikon include the expected lifespan of the shutter of their pro cameras in their spec sheets (you know that the shutter of a Nikon D850 is good for 200,000 actuations, and that on a Canon 6D Mark II it is good for 150,000 actuations). But of course, it’s simply an estimate. Which probably includes a solid safety margin. Some resellers (the big cameras stores, typically) advertise cameras which have passed their “shutter life limit” as “not working” to absolve themselves from any liability in case the shutter dies two days after the buyer has received the camera.
The other situation is when the seller has limited knowledge of cameras in general (it’s a pawn shop, for instance) or of the quirks of a specific brand or model in particular. They can’t make the camera work, and rather than writing it off completely, advertise it as non-working. It happens. Be sure that somebody more knowledgeable will notice the listing, identify the issue, decide to take the risk and score big.
Davy Crockett – the Alamo – San Antonio, TX. The camera had been advertised as “not working”
(**) – Both eBay and Mercari are making efforts to kick the scammers out of their marketplace – eBay will only pay the sellers after they have shared some form of tax ID with them, and after the Postal Service has delivered the item to the buyer. They also validate that the data provided by the seller (address, bank information) is consistent. On Mercari, participants (sellers or buyers) can opt to have their identity (and their existence) verified by a third party – and upon successful verification a little blue checkmark is added next to their name.
(***) By the way, donations to a charity like Goodwill may be tax deductible, but purchases you make online at Shopgoodwill.com are not. As per Shopgoodwill.com, “When you purchase an item on ShopGoodwill.com you are paying fair market value for the item, therefore purchases made through ShopGoodwill.com are not tax deductible“.
Three recent purchases on Shopgoodwill.com – all three work perfectly.
Abbaye de Fontfroide – France. Fujifilm X100t – another eBay find.
I regularly keep an eye on Shopgoodwill.com auctions. Looking for the unexpected opportunity. A nice camera for a pitance. It’s not very frequent – I’m surprised by how much people are ready to spend on cameras donated to a charity and sold untested.
Sometimes you are lucky. A good camera gets unnoticed – so poorly described that almost nobody can guess what it really is – or the online auction ends at a time when most people have better things to do, and can not be on line to “snipe”.
There were a few auctions ending on Xmas eve and I ended up being the highest bidder for two cameras – a Canon Photura I’m currently testing, and this black Olympus Tough TG-5. The item was correctly described, was said to have passed some basic tests (both points which are not that frequent at Shopgoodwill) but there was very little competition to acquire it – no bidding war and no absurd high sale price. For a change.
The first thing I did of course was to compare it with the Olympus Tough TG-4 I had bought a few months ago.
The top plate of the TG-5 (the black camera) with the extra control wheel, the improved zoom command and the GPS (Log) switch.
What are the differences?
The big difference is the sensor. All Tough TG-x models are built around a 1/2.3in sensor. In the first two models (TG-1 and TG-2), the sensor was a 12 megapixel backlit CMOS. The TG-3 benefited from an upgrade to 16 megapixels, which was carried over to the TG-4. The TG-3 and 4 were criticized for their poor control of noise in the darker areas of an image, and for the TG-5, Olympus reverted to 12 megapixel design. With a pixel pitch of 1.53μm versus 1.33μm for the TG-4 each pixel gets 15% more light. Combined with a more powerful image processing engine (a dual quad core Olympus truepic VIII as opposed to the TG-4’s truepic VII), the TG-5 should offer an improved control over noise and deliver cleaner pictures.
The new 12 megapixel sensor also brings a larger sensitivity range – up to 12,800 ISO to whomever is brave enough to test such a setting on a 1/2.3″ sensor, and the support of 4k video.
The other changes relate to the fit and finish and the ergonomics for the most part – there is now a conventional zoom lever and a new control knob on the top plate, and a switch to activate and deactivate the on-board GPS. And big news, the proprietary Olympus connector (used to charge the camera’s battery) has finally been replaced with a standard USB connector (yes!).
The new menus are hardly an improvement
Nothing is perfect, and the menus have been revised. Olympus has gained a bad reputation for its confusing and un-intuitive menus, and proves it’s deserved with the TG-5. On the Tough TG-s, Olympus have given a particular emphasis to what they call “live control”: some important settings are not available through the menus, but only when the photographer is ready to shoot a new picture and presses the “OK” key – a column of options is displayed as an overlay at the right of the image, with the different values that each setting can take displayed on an horizontal bar at the bottom of the picture. It’s the only way to chose the form factor of the images (4:3, 3:2 or 16:9, for instance, or the image quality (RAW, RAW+JPEG Fine, JPEG Low) and so on).
At the same time, additional settings have been added to the conventional menus of the TG-5. Some are obviously useful (like setting the standard and high limits of the Auto ISO sensitivity control, the color space or entering copyright information), but others seem to duplicate (or refine) settings already available in the “live control” mode. And they’re not always available – some options are greyed out when the camera is set to “scene” mode, for instance. To make matters worse, instead of giving meaningful names to the new options, Olympus simply designated them as A, B1, B2, C, and so on. Confusing.
Yes, the TG-5 delivered an improvement, but not as large as the testers had expected. The improvement was particularly obvious in the 100 to 800 ISO range, where the noise reduction algorithm was at the same time much less aggressive and more efficient – resulting in more details and less chroma noise.
In my experience, the TG-4 was producing images with very visible noise in the shadows, even by sunny weather under the tropics, and it was not easy to get rid of it. Any improvement in that area would be welcome, and would justify an upgrade to the TG-5, if it delivered the goods.
I compared the two cameras in the real life and tried to validate the conclusions of Imaging-Resource. Firstly, on both cameras, there is more noise on the Raw files than on the jpegs. Which means that the processing engine does a good job at removing it when it generates jpegs. Secondly, the TG-5’s jpegs show more detail in the shadows than the TG-4. The difference is not huge, but big enough to be visible on the Retina screen of an iPad. So, yes, the TG-5’s pictures look better. And what about the rest of the user experience?
The TG-5’s body is made of a different type of plastic and feels more substantial in the hands. Because it offers more controls (physical like the wheel on the top plate or logical with more options in the menus), the TG-5 does not seem as simple to use as the TG-4, and will require more peeks in the user manual than the TG-4, before the photographer is totally familiar with it.
Father and son – along the Chattahoochee River, Atlanta – Olympus TG-5 – adjusted in Lightroom from Raw.
As a conclusion, I would say that the TG-5 has a higher potential than the TG-4 (more details in the shadows, greater ability to be configured to the preferences of the photographer) – but that it’s also a tad more complicated to use. Although it’s difficult to quantify, the TG-5 seems to deliver better images in more circumstances than the TGs of previous generations could. Not having to carry and use a proprietary connection cable to charge the battery of the camera (and using any standard USB cable instead) could very well be the most significant (and the most welcome) improvement.
In the grand scheme of things
As of today (early 2025), there are very few new compact cameras on the shelves of the resellers, and even fewer which are shockproof, waterproof and adventure ready. The OM System TG-7 is the most competent of those always ready cameras – but like all the previous versions of the Tough TG, it will be limited by its 1/2.3″ sensor.
Premium compact cameras, like the Sony RX100 or the Canon G7X, have a much larger sensor. The same can be said of the iPhone (the sensor behind the 16 Pro Max’s main camera is almost as large as the RX100’s at 1/1.14in). Without even considering the “computational photography” trickery of the iPhone, all are obviously going to yield much better results than the TGs in low light and in the shadows. But the Sony and the Canon are not weather resistant, and their long telescopic zoom makes them more delicate than a Tough TG (you won’t bring them to the beach or on a dusty trail ride), while the iPhone (and similar high end smart phones) are fully automated wizards that can’t compete with a dedicated camera when it comes to ergonomics and flexibility of the settings.
Comparison of the 1″ sensor of the Sony RX100 (or the Canon G7X) with the 1/2.3″ sensor the TG-5 (courtesy: apotelyt.com).
The TG-7 is a very limited upgrade of the TG-6, itself a rather limited upgrade of the TG-5. The improvement in image quality and ergonomics between the three most recent TGs and the previous generations is not huge, but any improvement in the 100 to 800 ISO range is good to take, and if you can find a TG-5 at a reasonable price, my recommendation would be to take it over a TG-4. If only for its universal USB connector.
Olympus TG-5Olympus TG-5Olympus TG-5.Olympus TG-5 – Chattahoochee National Forest – images above are jpegs straight out of the camera – the noise seems much better controlled than with the TG-4.
In the times of manual focus (film) cameras, Olympus followed a pretty simple rule to name its SLRs – there was a line of one digit OM bodies (OM-1, OM-2, OM-4, OM-2SP, OM-3, OM-4ti, OM-3ti) for the enthusiasts and the pros – those cameras were very compact, very well built, and fairly innovative.
And a second line of “two digit” models (OM-10, OM-20, OM-30, OM-40) – designed for amateurs – not as compact, with more plastic and fewer innovations. Obviously, the “two-digit” models were also much cheaper than their “one-digit” siblings.
As often, some of the amateur models went by a different name on the US market: the OM-20 was sold as the OM-G, and OM-40 as OM-PC – all leading Japanese cameras makers were using US-market specific model names in the eighties and nineties – probably as a way to fight grey market imports.
Miami – Olympus OM-2
OM-40 / OM-PC
The OM-PC was launched in 1985, at the very end of the manual focus era (the revolutionary Minolta AF 7000 was launched in January that same year, and nothing would be the same afterwards).
Typically for an Olympus SLR from the eighties (like the OM-2SP or the OM-4), it has no on-off switch – and therefore tends to depletes its batteries rapidly.
Also typically for an Olympus of the eighties, its exposure metering system is a bit “different”: like the Nikon FA, it offers some primitive form of matrix metering (called ESP in this case).
Like the OM-2, the OM-40 determines the exposure by measuring the light reflected on the curtains of the shutter or on the film when the picture is being taken (they call that “OTF” for “on the film”, of course). OTF follows the conventional center weighted pattern.
In addition to OTF, Olympus also designed an “Electro-Selective Pattern” or “ESP”. It’s an embryonic evaluative system, which compares the luminosity of the center of the image with the periphery, and follows a clever algorithm to determine the right exposure (more detailed explanations on the OM-40 user manual, that can be downloaded from Buktus’ excellent site).
The user manual leaves no doubt that using the ESP in conjunction with the Program mode is what Olympus recommends, but an Aperture Priority and a manual modes are also available.
The black plastic did not age well – note the white residue.
The OM Zuiko bayonet mount remained the same all along the production run of OM cameras, which may explain why the implementation of the Program auto-exposure mode is also different from what is done by all other camera makers, and why there never was an Olympus OM camera with “Shutter Priority” auto-exposure.
Most camera makers had to create a new version of their lenses in order to support multiple auto-exposure modes: some have a lock on the smallest aperture (Nikon), some have a specific “A” position added to the aperture ring (Canon), and some needed a new version of their bayonet mount, with a proportional control of the iris (Yashica-Contax) or with electrical contacts (Pentax KA).
Olympus did not create a new line of lenses or modify their bayonet mount – they simply expected the photographer shooting with the OM-PC to select the narrowest aperture of the lens (generally f/16 on an Olympus Zuiko lens) when operating the camera in Program mode.
But Olympus being Olympus, there’s a catch: selecting the smallest aperture is not mandatory: if the photographer sets the aperture ring to another value (f/8 for example), the “program” will try and find the right shutter speed/aperture combination without going beyond the aperture selected on the aperture ring (f/8 in our case). Interesting, if not perfectly intuitive for the beginner, who is at risk of hitting the fastest shutter speed of the camera (1/1000 sec) on a bright sunny day without understanding what’s happening.
Miami – Olympus OM-2
The ergonomics of the OM-PC is also typical of Olympus OM bodies, with the shutter speed ring at the periphery of the bayonet lens mount. It works great with Olympus Zuiko prime lenses (which have their aperture ring at the front of the lens, not at the back): the right hand holds the camera and presses the shutter release, and the left hand takes care of the shutter speed, the aperture and the focusing, with enough distance between each ring to avoid confusion.
Contrarily to most of their competitors, Olympus did not have a cheap line of lenses for amateurs, a line of better lenses for enthusiasts, and a “pro” line for… pro photographers. All OM Zuiko lenses were supposed to be of equal build quality and performance, the only technical differentiation between lenses of a given focal length being the maximum aperture. Therefore, for a given focal length, Olympus was typically proposing 3 models with a maximum aperture of f/3.5, f/2.8 and f/2.0, at different price points.
All lenses were very compact, with their own depth of field preview lever, and the aperture ring pushed at the front of the lens. Today, Olympus OM Zuiko lenses are easy to find, and the f/3.5 version of most lenses is the most common and very affordable.
Maybe it looked modern in 1985 – lots of black plastic
The so-so and the ugly
The viewfinder of the OM-PC is nowhere as good as what you find in a one-digit OM, but correct for a camera designed for the budget of amateurs. All the information is provided in a column at the left of the viewfinder (shutter speed, metering mode), but – as usual for cameras of this era, the photographer has no information about the aperture selected by the camera when operating in Program Mode.
Untypical for an Olympus OM camera, the OM-PC is ugly, and did not age well – it’s built of black plastic covered with a sort of artificial rubber, which tends to exude a white residue over time. And at the top of that, all this rubber cladding makes the camera bulky. Ugly and bulky, nothing of the grace of an OM-1 or OM-2.
Miami – Calle Ocho – Olympus OM-2
As a conclusion
It’s difficult to love this camera – it’s not bad, it’s not expensive, the metering system is innovative, and I’ve no doubt it will produce nice pictures most of the time. But an OM-2 is in the same price range on the second hand market, and will be as good of a tool in the hands of a knowledgeable photographer. The OM-2 is so much more beautiful. And with such a great, wide and luminous viewfinder!
Like the “amateur-oriented” manual focus SLRs of the other major brands, the OM-PC was made obsolete by the Minolta AF-7000 and its cheaper derivatives, and rapidly disappeared from the market. Contrarily to the other four big Japanese camera makers, Olympus failed at launching an attractive autofocus camera system, and aimed their subsequent efforts at the point of shoot and bridge cameras markets, simply keeping two titanium clad and very expensive “single-digit” OM cameras (the OM-4ti and the OM-3ti) in their product line until the end of the century.
Olympus would only return to the interchangeable lens camera market after the switch to digital (with the E1 Four-Thirds camera of 2003). They followed up with an innovative and attractive line of Micro-Four-Thirds cameras in 2009, but lost momentum – and after suffering large financial losses year after year, they finally sold their camera business to a private equity firm a few years ago. We don’t know what the new owner will do with the brand, but considering they won’t have the profits made by Olympus with their medical equipment business to keep them afloat, it’s likely they will focus their diminished resources on fewer models and fewer markets. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
The commands are organized in a very similar “Olympus” way
One of the rules I had set when I started this blog fifteen years ago was that I would not write about a camera I had not tested with at least one roll of film. This post is one of the rare exceptions – there is no photo taken with the OM-PC. Because I could not resolve myself to shoot with an OM-PC, when I had an OM-2 waiting at my disposal.
Miami – Olympus OM-2.
The best OM (film) camera?
“Single digit” OM manual focus SLRs are some of the most beautiful and rewarding cameras of the film era – but some models are specially desirable:
OM-2 – it’s really two cameras in one – set it to manual, and you could believe you’re shooting with a semi automatic OM-1; push the selector to Auto, and a shutter speed scale shows up in the viewfinder, making it an aperture priority auto exposure camera. In my personal opinion, the OM camera to buy – not too complex, very compact, beautifully designed, and graced with an incredible viewfinder. The OM-2n is almost identical. Both run with easy to find SR44 batteries. You can find a good one for as little as $50.00.
OM-4t/OM-4ti – the t and the ti are the same camera – but with different names depending on the geography where they were sold, and on the finish of the top and bottom plates: made of titanium, some were painted black, some wore a more natural “champagne” color. Technically the OM-4t/ti is similar to the OM-4, except for the circuitry controlling the flash, which supports a “high speed sync” function. On those models, Olympus also fixed the battery drainage issue seen on the OM-2SP, OM-3 and OM-4. All the OM-4s have a very elaborate multi-spot metering option, and two high key and low key exposure compensation buttons on the top plate. The exposure values sampled (up to eight) are shown on a small LCD bar graph display at the bottom edge of the viewfinder. To me, it’s far too complex, but some photographers swear by it (and Canon shamelessly copied the multi-spot and high key/low key features on their T90). The champagne finish tends to be fragile and the cameras often look scruffy, but the black models are to die for if you like compact, all metal cameras. The scruffy ones sell for at least $250.00, nice copies can go up to $1000.00.
The OM-3ti was produced in very small volumes (assembled by hand – they were built using freshly manufactured OM4ti models as donor cameras). Not surprisingly considering how it was manufactured, the OM-3ti was also extremely expensive – in Leica M territory. Used copies are currently selling for anything between $1,500 and $3,000.
I would avoid: the OM-1 (because it needs mercury oxide batteries, which are impossible to find), the OM-2SP, OM-3 (non-t or non-ti models), and OM-4 (non-t or non-ti) because they all deplete their batteries extremely quickly due to issues with the design of their electronic circuits. Those issues were addressed with the t or ti versions of the OM-3 and OM-4.
You have to love Fujifilm’s math. In the fall of 2024, they’ve released a new entry level APS-C mirrorless camera, the X-M5, which has been positively received by the pundits. In a way, it’s a combination of the characteristics of two defunct models, the X-M1 and the X-A5.
The X-M5 has been well received so far
I don’t own a X-M5 – and I don’t see why I would need to buy one at this juncture – but I’ve owned a X-M1 for a short while, and still use (and mostly like) the X-A5.
A quick review of the Fujifilm X-A5
In the days when the resolution of the sensors was low (12 or 16 Megapixel for an APS-C sized sensor), moire was a big issue, and camera makers had to place a low pass filter in front of the sensor of their cameras to mitigate the issue. But placing a low pass filter in front of the sensor limited the resolution of the images it produced even more. By developing their own Trans-X filter array as a substitute to the Bayer array that everybody else was using, Fujifilm was able to defeat moire without needing a low pass filter – boosting the real life resolution of their cameras. The X-Pro or the X-T1, for instance, were supposed to deliver images of the same quality as a full frame camera, because the performance of their sensor was not choked by a low pass filter.
It was a big thing 12 years ago. And as a result, Fujifilm’s Trans-X models could be sold at a premium.
Fujifilm X-A5 and XC 15-45mm power zoom. Equivalent to a 23-70mm on a 35mm camera.
In 2014, having launched the X-Pro, the X-100S and the X-T1, Fujifilm was ready to make Trans-X more accessible, and launched what could be described as a “premium entry level” model, the X-M1. Followed a few weeks later by its less fortunate little brother, the X-A1, where the Trans-X sensor had been replaced by a Bayer sensor. Premium vs Basic. Trans-X vs Bayer. Expensive vs cheap. As a premium entry level model, the X-M1 was not very successful, and the X-M line was abandoned rapidly. The X-A1, on the other hand, met its public, and was followed by a long line of models – the X-A2, X-A3, X-A10, X-A5 and finally the X-A7.
I’ve always liked small cameras, and I had bought a nice second hand X-M1. With a good lens and a static subject, image quality was extremely good (it shared its 16 Megapixel sensor with with X-Pro and the X-100S), but it was one of the Fujifilm cameras that had not transitioned to phase detection autofocus, and its contrast detection algorithm was slow and not very accurate – the camera’s keep rate on moving subjects was really bad, and I sold it rapidly (the same can be said of the original X-100 – I loved the images it produced, but far too many of them were out of focus).
The LCD display is articulated, and bright enough. Two control wheels on the right (the silver one is horizontal, the black one vertical). Not that common on entry level cameras.
The X-A line was probably the last to adopt Phase Detection autofocus in the Fujifilm line up, but when it did with the X-A5, it made all the difference. It’s a reactive and precise machine, and a joy to use.
Being a “A” model, it does not benefit from a Trans-X sensor, but with 24 Megapixels, its Bayer matrix sensor does not need a low pass filter and image quality is very similar to what you would get from a Trans-X camera like the X-H1 or the X-T3.
It’s an entry level model, but it’s not overly de-contented – and it’s built of good quality components (the rear display is articulated, and usable even under a bright sunshine). It’s a true Fujifilm camera, designed to produce Jpegs that can be used “out of the camera”, with all sorts of film simulations to personalize your images.
It comes with a 15-45mm collapsible Power Zoom, (the XC15-45mmF3.5-5.6 OIS PZ) which is very compact and produces images of good quality. I had used another copy of that zoom on a X-T1 a few years ago, and while the image quality was really good, I had been irritated by the “fly by wire” control of the focal length, at the same time too slow and over-reactive. I had also noticed it drained the battery of the camera rather rapidly. No such issue on the copy I’m using on the X-A5 (maybe the firmware of the lens has been refined, maybe shooting without a viewfinder forces the photographer to operate more slowly and masks the over-reactivity of the commands). In any case, its small size makes it a good fit for the X-A5. The body+lens combination is smaller than a Fujifilm X-100 – and than the most compact of the manual focus SLRs of the late seventies (Olympus OM-2 or Nikon FM).
Smaller than a “pancake” – a filter lens (fixed focus, F:8).
Without an electronic viewfinder but with a power zoom, the X-A5 is definitely in a different category than an X-T or X-H camera. Fewer controls are available (no AE or AF lock buttons, no joystick, for instance), but the touch screen is very usable, the Q menus easy to navigate, and the two control wheels let the photographer adjust all the important parameters (speed or aperture or exposure compensation) on the fly. Ultimately, it’s a trade-off: it’s a small and light camera, and even if it’s not as powerful as a “big” X-T or X-H with a constant aperture zoom, it will be far less of a pain to carry around, and it is my camera of choice for casual photography.
The most serious gripe I have is not directly at the camera, but at the inconsistency of the way the aperture is set on Fujifilm lenses. If you’ve started using Fujifilm cameras with the X-Pro or the X-T1 and fixed focal length lenses (or one of Fujifilm’s high-end constant aperture zooms), you’ve been used to setting the aperture on the aperture ring of the lens, like you would have done with a manual focus SLR in the seventies. But cheaper sliding aperture zooms have an aperture ring with no marking, and entry level zooms (like the one coming with the X-A5) have no aperture ring at all. Which means you must use the control wheel to set the aperture , and check the aperture value on the rear LCD display. At the top of that, the control wheels are not always located at the same place on the body of the camera. It depends on the model. It’s not an issue if you shoot exclusively with an X-A5, but confusing if you alternate between a “big” X-T (or X-H) and a “small” X-A5 body, or between expensive and cheaper lenses.
This tiny lens is available in Japan. It gives the “sixties Instamatic” look to your pictures.
When you’ve used a recent Fujifilm camera (anything they’ve launched in the last four years), you’ve most probably connected the camera to your smartphone using Fujifilm X-App, which takes advantage of Bluetooth and Wifi to make photo transfers, remote control and firmware upgrades with ease. That’s something that you will miss on the X-A5, which has to rely on the older and more cumbersome Cam Remote.
The X-A5 is a tad too big to be the camera I always carry with me – that would be role of the Olympus Tough TG-4 or the Fujifilm XQ2 if I was not so lazy and generally used my phone to take pictures – but it’s a good camera for casual sorties – like a walk in an old neighborhood or a week-end in an interesting city – when I don’t want to schlepp a bigger X-T and its heavier lens. Even with the 15-45 kit lens, you don’t lose much in terms of image quality. Overall, it’s a very pleasant camera, and a keeper.
The X-A5 was launched in 2018 and replaced with the X-A7 in 2020. It can be bought second hand for approx. $300.00 (body only), while nice copies can fetch up to $500.00 with the kit lens and OEM batteries and chargers.
What about the X-M5? It’s an M series camera, and as such it benefits from a Trans-X sensor, in this case the 26 Megapixel chip also seen on the X-T4. And its video section has been seriously beefed up, because that’s what the market is asking for at the moment. As Fujifilm’s entry level camera, it has been priced very aggressively, and if it’s as good (compared to its peers from other brands) as the X-A5 was six years ago, Fujifilm got themselves a winner.
Marietta – GA – Not bad for an entry level mirrorless camera (Fujifilm X-A5, XC15-45 Power Zoom)
Marietta, GA – Fujifilm X-A5 and XC15-45 Power Zoom.
APS-C – what does it mean? A long time ago, when film was still king, Kodak and the leading camera makers decided to launch a new film format, which was supposed to address some of the shortcomings of the well known 135 (aka 35mm) film format, save on silver halide, and bring more revenue. That format was named APS.
The film (and the cassette containing it) were smaller than the conventional 35mm film and cartridge. APS cameras offered the choice of three form factors: the default showed the same 3:2 proportions as the 35mm negatives or slides, but at a reduced 0.66 scale. It was named APS-C. A second form factor, APS-H, placed the images in a frame of 16:9 proportions and APS-P produced panoramic pictures.
When camera makers started designing dSLRs in the late nineteen nineties, the chip foundries could not manufacture full size sensors (sensors of the same size as a 35mm negative) at a remotely acceptable cost. Nikon and Canon had to adopt smaller sensors, which were roughly the size of the APS-C negatives. It became a sort of standard, and we still use “APS-C’ to designate an image sensor of 24x16mm. Approximately 10 years later, sufficient progress had been made in the chip foundries to make “full-frame” sensors commercially viable. Today, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony sell interchangeable lens cameras of two sensor sizes, APS-C, and Full-Frame. Fujifilm is primarily selling cameras with APS-C sized sensors.
Fujica AX-5 and Fujifilm X-A5. Fujifilm have been in business for almost a century, and at some point sold their cameras under the Fujica brand. They later sold them as “Fuji” before settling on “Fujifilm”, right when the market started moving to digital. Go figure. But they’ve always had a fondness for the letter “X”. In the late seventies/early eighties, they had a whole range of SLRs named AX-something (AX-1, AX-3, AX-5, AX Multi…). They were not bad by the standards of the time, but certainly not as good or popular as their competitors from Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax.
An APS-C digital camera smaller than a 35mm SLR (the Fujica AX-5) : not that frequent, unfortunately.Mission Concepcion – San Antonio, TX. Fujifilm X-A5 and 15-45mm lens. There was some clutter at the left of the stairs. It was removed in post processing by Lightroom’s AI.
This blog is running on WordPress, and they provide basic statistics about this site’s traffic, that I’m sharing with you.
Approximately 52,000 of you visited Cameragx.com last year, for a total number of 69,000 page views. Those numbers have been fairly constant over the last few post-COVID years. Thank you.
As can be expected (since this blog is written in English), traffic is originating primarily from English speaking countries.
More interesting is to look at the most popular posts.
CamerAgX in 2024 – most popular pages
Pentax P30, Fuji STX-2, Yashica FX-3 Super 2000, all entry level, manual focus, single lens reflex cameras primarily used by learners, and less expensive than the Canon AE-1 that people new to film photography tend to buy as their first film camera.
A few years ago, there was more interest in Nikon cameras, and less in Pentax SLRs.
the same stats collected in January 2020
There seems to be a constant interest for all things Fujica, Fuji and Fujifilm – I happen to like to current crop of Fujifilm digital cameras, and a few of their SLRs from the seventies – I still believe that the ST-801 is an all time great. In-between, there are cameras like the bayonet mount SLRs from the late seventies (the AX series) which are not very well known, and for which CamerAgX is one of the rare sources of information. By the way, the index of all the cameras reviewed in those columns has been updated recently.
Recently, I’ve introduced more content related to digital cameras or to the digital workflow, but I’ll keep on reviewing film cameras in the future as well – with a focus on relatively unknown, still inexpensive, really compact cameras of the eighties and nineties.
Feel free to provide suggestions.
That being said, I wish you a Happy New Year, and plenty of success in your photographic endeavours.
X.T.
Tokyo – Tea at the Hamarikyu Gardens – Fujifilm X-T4 Tokyo – Tsukiji River – Fujifilm X-T4. Tokyo – sake barrels at the Meiji Jingu – Fujifilm X-T4
I started using Lightroom on a Mac in 2008, when “Photoshop Lightroom 2” was launched.
I upgraded regularly up to Lightroom 6, and kept on working with this version until I started progressively using Lightroom Mobile on iOS and iPadOS devices. At some point this year I came to the conclusion that I was not using Lightroom 6 and the old Mac anymore, that all my recent pictures were cataloged and processed on the iPad, and that it made sense to migrate my Lightroom 6 catalog to Adobe’s Creative Cloud.
Using the “Lightroom mobile app” on a iPad – I had not seen how fundamentally different the new cloud based Lightroom was from the old PC or Mac based versions. When some features were absent, I had just assumed it was due to limitations of the iPad or to restrictions imposed by Apple. It’s only when I started considering migrating my Lightroom 6 catalogs to the “new Lightroom” that I could see that Lightroom was at best an umbrella brand, and that there was little in common between the Classic and the (non-Classic) Lightroom.
San Juan, Puerto Rico – shot in 2008 – when I started using Lightroom.
Lightroom 6 and Lightroom Classic are conventional desktop and laptop based applications, that keep a local catalog of the images, and store them on directly attached hard drives and on network attached storage.
The new Lightroom (currently known as “Lightroom”) is a totally different animal. The storage of the images is taken care of by Adobe’s own Creative Cloud. The end users can upload, catalog and edit their images from a Web Interface running in their favorite Web Browser, or from a thin application layer running on smartphones or tablets (iPhone, iPad and Android devices), or on conventional laptops and desktop PCs or Macs. This application layer does not store the images permanently – it just downloads them from the cloud to a local cache when the photographer wants to work with them.
Now, let’s stop for a minute. Yes, you’ve read it right – Lightroom Classic (with the local catalog pointing to the local storage) and the new Lightroom thin app with its cloud storage can run simultaneously on a PC or a Mac. Depending on how you set them up, they will or will not keep their respective collections in sync. In sync, but separated and largely independent.
San Juan, Puerto Rico – Nikon D80 – April 2008
What I had not understood was that even if they look similar upon a cursory examination, Lightroom Classic and Lightroom (the new, cloud based Lightroom) are largely incompatible. Each lives in its own universe – they share pictures and edits transparently, and seem to cohabitate in perfect harmony – but they remain in separate worlds.
You fully realize how different the two products are the day you decide to abandon Lightroom Classic and its local storage, and start considering working exclusively with “Lightroom” in the cloud universe. Naturally, you will want to bring your catalog of Lightroom Classic images to the Creative Cloud, and that’s when you’ll start feeling the pain.
Because the migration of your Lightroom Classic catalogs is painful. In fact, there is no migration as such. When you export a collection to the cloud, Adobe retains your original image as transferred from the camera, but all the subsequent edits to that image will be aggregated in a single all encompassing step. Basically, you will get your original, and the final state of your image after all the edits have been applied. Adobe will also retain the metadata of the picture, the information you have added (title, comments, keywords, flags, stars) but not much else. The original folder structure on your local disks, the smart collections, the photo albums, the slide shows, even geo tagging information – won’t be transferred and will therefore be lost.
Near Pienza, Italy – Fujifilm X-T4 – July 2024, after I definitely switched to “Lightroom mobile app”
It may seem like a huge loss. But I’m an amateur and don’t make a living from my pictures. I’ve already printed the photo albums I needed to print, shared the slide shows I wanted to share, and won’t need to go back and rearrange them. As long as I can keep my pictures as they were when I was finished editing them, I’ll be fine. Having the ability to return to my images from any device, anywhere, without having to worry about storage devices, RAID arrays and off site backups, without even a laptop, has more value to me than the layout of a few photo albums.
Naming conventions….
Adobe has kept changing the names of its “Lightroom” products, and even today, they are not perfectly consistent.
The conventional PC/Mac version of Lightroom, with its local storage, its local catalog, and its very broad feature set, is known as “Lightroom Classic“. Abbreviation: “LrC”
The “new” Lightroom, combining cloud storage and a thin interface running on a browser, a smartphone, tablet, PC or Mac is simply known as “Lightroom“. Some people still call it “Lightroom Creative Cloud” or “Lightroom CC”. But it’s “Lightroom“, abbreviated as “Lr” in the dock of a Mac or a PC, and on the Home screen of a mobile device.
When it’s running on a smartphone or a tablet, “Lightroom” is designated officially as “Adobe Photoshop Lightroom mobile app“, but it’s still abbreviated as “Lr”. The Lightroom mobile app is free but its feature set is limited. In order to work with RAW files, store images in the Adobe Creative Cloud and play with the new generative AI features, you will need to subscribe to Premium features (and you will be using “Adobe Lightroom mobile app with premium features enabled“, abbreviated as “Lr”, of course).
More about the differences between Lightroom Classic and Lightroom when it comes to storage
Did you recognize them?
“The Fathers of Technology” : Charles Babbage, Nikola Tesla, Vannevar Bush, Alan Turing, Claude Shannon and Steve Jobs. Corner of Tremont Street and Frazier Ave – Chattanooga, TN
You “take” pictures, but how do you “give back” to the people you’ve just photographed? Here is a suggestion: print the pictures, and give the prints, on the spot, right after you’ve shot them. It’s a nice gift to family and friends with whom you’re sharing good moments, and to the people who have generously let you capture their image, and, maybe, a bit of their soul.
Very few people still create photo albums. Because nobody has prints. Composing a photo-album online takes time, effort and money, and it can be one to two weeks before you receive it. Printing a selection of images on a pocket printer is an easy way to create pocketable photo albums with no hassle; wherever, just when you feel like it, for not much money. Instant gratification.
No Campbell Soup for you – the mini Link 3 is about twice the size of a compact camera. It’s totally wireless and the battery is good for 100 prints between two charges.
There are many more ways to use those mini-prints: in Japan school girls insert their Instax prints in plastic cases that they use to accessorize their bags, and I create my own personalized luggage tags – you won’t confuse my suitcase with anybody else’s. Your imagination is the limit.
How does it work?
Fujifilm sell their instant film in 3 sizes: Instax Mini (the image is roughly the size of a business card), Instax Square (a bit larger, and square), and Instax Wide (twice the size of the Mini). They manufacture cameras for each of the three formats, as well as dedicated portable printers.
Comparing print sizes: Polaroid SX-70 vs Fujifilm Instax Square vs Fujifilm Instax mini.
Other makers of pocketable printers use different technologies (zero ink paper, generally) but with Fujifilm, it’s about silver halide, of course. Once a print is ejected from the printer, the image needs a few minutes to fully develop, but it’s part of the magic of instant film. Today we’ll focus on Fujifilm’s Instax Mini Link 3. It’s a pocketable, battery operated printer, that, when paired with a smartphone and loaded with a 10 print Instax Mini pack, will print business card size pictures. Of course, there’s an Instax Mini Link app to download and install on your smartphone.
Images can be printed directly from the photo gallery of the mobile device (with Fujifilm’s default settings), but the output will be better if you first bring the images in the Mini Link app, play with the contrast slider (I always boost it a notch), and print them from there.
The Mini Link app. For me “Simple Print” will do.
In my experience, the Mini Link transposes the colors and the exposure of the original picture accurately, and its prints are more defined and massively nicer than what you would get if you took a picture with a Fujifilm Instax camera. The Instax film is a much better performer than the very basic Fujifilm cameras designed to consume it, and the printer takes advantage of its potential. When you start from a good picture taken by a smartphone (or a dedicated camera), you’ll be happy with the prints.
The mini Link app and its basic settings.
I understand why people use instant cameras. There is a “fun”, almost magic component to it. But instant cameras are bulky, the quality of the prints generally poor, and if by pure luck you get an interesting picture, it will be unique, and the only way to share it will be to take a photo of it with a smartphone, and print the copies. From a totally dispassionate point of view, it’s a rather inefficient and wasteful way to use a pack of film.
No such issue with the Instax printer. You lose some of the magic – it’s not as “immediate” as pushing the shutter button on a Instax camera and the results are not as unpredictable – but you only print your good images after you’ve had an opportunity to crop them and tweak the exposure parameters on your smartphone. Your “keeper” rate will be very close to 100%, and you will print as many copies as your budget (and your patience) allow.
The image is being printed. It only takes a few seconds.
There is not much else to say about the Mini Link. It simply works. Prints are small and but good enough for the intended use – reminiscing of good times spent with loved ones, and instantly sharing a token of appreciation.
The mini print and one of the mini photo albums proposed by Fujifilm. This one is not particularly nice but came for free with an Instax camera.
The Mini Link 3 comes in three different colors (mine is “matcha green”) and sells for approximately $100. Prints cost a bit less than $1.00 each. I’m leaving mine permanently in my photo bag, and share the love whenever I can.
Hybrid Instax cameras: In addition to conventional “analog” Instax cameras and pocketable printers, Fujifilm also has a few hybrid Instax cameras in its lineup (Instax LiPlay, Instax Evo). Hybrids can be described as Instax printers, with a tiny 5 Megapixel sensor and a lens in the front, and a small color display at the back, packaged as a compact integrated device. The camera captures a digital image, that the photographer can evaluate on the color display, and decide to print, or not to print. Because the images are captured as digital files and saved on a micro-SD card, they can be edited, printed once or multiple times (in camera), and uploaded to a smartphone.
Zero Ink paper – if you over simplify, it’s not dissimilar to the thermal printer technology used to print receipts at the cash register or at the gas pump. But nicer, and more stable over time. The photo paper contains microscopic dye crystals that are initially colorless, and change color when they are heated. I had tested a Zero Ink (Zink) printer from Polaroid a long time ago. The prints aged well. Polaroid, Kodak and Canon are currently selling pockable printers integrating Zink technologies.
CamerAgX - a new life for old gear 